Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.” • Hacker News Board

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#181

Post by amluto » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:26 AM UTC

jamiek88 wrote: post #92

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably combusted? At 400 atms their biomass would compress into a gelatinous hydrocarbon fat blob with the oxygen present, resulting in automatic combustion. The amount of compression their bodies would experience is an order of magnitude greater than a diesel engine cylinder. The explosion would immediately be quenched by the surrounding water and the only thing remaining of the occupants would be ash. This would…

When it happened in that accident referred to elsewhere in the thread the water temp was elevated massively in that area (enclosed so measurable). Their blood would combust instantly. They found cooked blood after that accident too. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin

Why would anything, except possibly something particularly easy to ignite on a surface, ignite? The only thing being heated dramatically is the air, and a whole lot of cool water would be spraying everywhere at the same time.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#182

Post by voisin » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:29 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #175

voisin wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it an icon of human hubris or simply a tragedy that they didn’t think could happen? I.e. did they take undue risks because of the belief that it was unsinkable? There was another boat not too far off when it sank so presumably they were taking normal risks and it was just an unfortunate way to learn that their belief that it was unsinkable was wrong. Or are you referring to the insufficient number of lifeboats? I…

> Is it an icon of human hubris or simply a tragedy that they didn’t think could happen? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120402-the-myth-of-the-... (Titanic anniversary: The myth of the unsinkable ship) "There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable and nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers." Phillip Franklin, White Star Line vice-president, 1912

I don’t deny that this was the prevailing wisdom but did it lead to them taking any extra risk (relative to what other ships did at the time) as a result?

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#183

Post by jamiek88 » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:29 AM UTC

amluto wrote: post #181

jamiek88 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it happened in that accident referred to elsewhere in the thread the water temp was elevated massively in that area (enclosed so measurable). Their blood would combust instantly. They found cooked blood after that accident too. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin

Why would anything, except possibly something particularly easy to ignite on a surface, ignite? The only thing being heated dramatically is the air, and a whole lot of cool water would be spraying everywhere at the same time.

Same way bubbles imploding have localised temps hotter than the sun, just that writ larger and at 400 times atmosphere.

This: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/divers-bloo...

was 'only' at nine atmospheres the titanic is at four hundred!

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#184

Post by lisasays » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 2:53 AM UTC

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #33

Natsu wrote: post #9

Well, this explains a lot... they didn't have a window rated for the right depth and weren't really testing whether the hull was de-laminating according to the whistleblower, so we have a few guesses as to why the sub would just implode. The lack of contact would be because nobody was alive to contact, which is honestly better, at least they had a quick death instead of slow suffocation. And the banging noises are pr…

> And the banging noises are probably either the sub imploding or from debris falling to the ocean floor. Or something else entirely. There's a surprising amount of unexplained noise picked up from the ocean.

The USN said they detected noises "consistent with an implosion":

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65994405

However there may have been multiple noise events.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#185

Post by guax » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 4:40 AM UTC

civilitty wrote: post #143

ilyt wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes they stick their neck out because they don't actually understand the risks and consequences, but they are pretending that they do. Or they are just adrenaline junkies with far smaller risk threshold than typical human. In general there was a ton of red flags but as probably nobody gets to that level of money without ability to sell the stuff they are pedding, he probably sold the fact the submarine has su…

If the rumors about the window being certified to a maximum safe depth of 1300m are true, we’re well in “crazy negligent” territory. It’d be a surprise the sub survived so long.

I wonder if the issue was the certification or the construction. As in, the window was mad for 4k but was not tested and certified for that.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#186

Post by 411111111111111 » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 4:47 AM UTC

voisin wrote: post #182

toomuchtodo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is it an icon of human hubris or simply a tragedy that they didn’t think could happen? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120402-the-myth-of-the-... (Titanic anniversary: The myth of the unsinkable ship) "There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable and nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers." Phillip Franklin, White Star Line vice-president, 1912

I don’t deny that this was the prevailing wisdom but did it lead to them taking any extra risk (relative to what other ships did at the time) as a result?

Uh, the Titanic ran into an gigantic piece of ice which caused it to sink, the previous quote is the context for that.

This submarine likely decompressed, killing the CEO and I believe 3 rich tourists because they didn't believe they needed to check the health of their submersible, firing the people that raised security concerns.

I think it's safe to say that both captains were full of hubris

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#187

Post by guax » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 4:51 AM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #179

hex4def6 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree, although if the bells are destroyed, that doesn't mean they were the failure mechanism either. It's entirely possible the tube collapsing would result in a huge water hammer effect on the bells, causing them to be shattered. It's going to be interesting to see to what level (if any), this gets root-caused. It's not trivial to do when stuff is miles down on the ocean floor. I assume there isn't a regulatory req…

The bells are titanium iirc, I wouldn’t think they would shatter. I thought the report is they were 100+ feet apart, it’s a crazy amount of force.

They could just glide apart from whatever depth the implosion happened. The force is unfathomable but the distance is not related to it I think.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#188

Post by guax » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 4:54 AM UTC

msm_ wrote: post #161

lm28469 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it really is a risk/reward question risk: die reward: cool pic on instagram

Depends on the risk probability, I guess. Walking across the street has nonzero chance of dying. By that logic going to a shop for an icecream has low reward (icecream) and high risk (death).

High penalty. The risk is still a statistic, and fairly low. This guys sub had the same penalty but much higher risk.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#189

Post by guax » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 5:01 AM UTC

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #90

Almost as interesting as this story has been the comments online. Everyone, everywhere just parroting and re-parroting the same comments, attitude, pretending to understand the engineering with snippets from comments they’ve read, reactive talking points, etc… Very strange. Did anyone else feel like an alien following this story online?

That is standard human behaviour. We're all like this on almost every topic. Think about how much of your opinions are shaped similarly.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#190

Post by guax » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 5:08 AM UTC

ansible wrote: post #165

jacquesm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. I work with a company that does this kind of stuff (deep see exploration vehicle design), materials science is a tricky but very interesting subject. When someone seemingly does 'the impossible', subjects paying passengers to extreme risks and throws the rulebook on safe design out of the porthole you can bet there will be an entry in 'Risks Digest' at some point or another. Carbon fiber is a great materi…

> Carbon fiber is a great material, if used where it shines. For this application I don't think it is a good choice, even if it worked a few times. What I didn't understand is the focus on the electronics and the control system, those are irrelevant if the hull isn't going to work out. That's all true, but the use of the Logitech game controller and and other consumer-grade electronics rightfully drew scorn of its ow…

I think you're under estimating the controller and over estimating your understanding of the conditions it would live on the vessel. Why it's non redundant? There were likely spares around, if it misbehaves you can get a new one in seconds.